The Oxford English Dictionary defines “intent” as the “ultimate purpose” or “aim of an action”, and in English criminal law this definition often serves the purposes of justice well. However, it is not always possible to understand a defendant's intentions so easily for the purposes of determining their guilt.
Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1968 provides that the intent of the defendant will be determined subjectively; meaning the jury must look at what the evidence provided suggests the defendant actually intended, not what they believe he or she should have wanted the outcome of their actions to be.
In the majority of cases, the intent law is split into two groups: basic intent crimes and specific intent crimes, depending on the wording of the law in question.
What is Basic Intent?
Basic intent crimes are criminal acts where it is not necessary for the defendant to have desired the crime be committed. In essence, a person may be found guilty of a basic intent crime on the grounds of recklessness or negligence, rather than because they purposely set out to commit the crime in question.
Examples of basic intent crimes are common assault under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; and sexual assault, following the ruling in R v. Heard [2007].
When Must Specific Intent be Proved?
Specific intent crimes, on the other hand, require the defendant to have desired or actively brought about the circumstances of the crime. Essentially, specific intent must be proved for offences where no other state of mind will be sufficient.
Murder is the most commonly-cited example of a specific intent crime. In order to prove a defendant is guilty of murder, the prosecution cannot rely on their recklessness as to whether a person would die as a result of their actions. The defendant must have killed their victim with the intention of either killing them or committing grievous bodily harm on them; no other mens rea will do.
Specific intent is more difficult to prove than basic intent, because the mens rea is more stringent and it can be difficult, if not impossible, for a jury to fully understand the state of mind of the defendant at the time the crime was committed. The law has therefore created two workarounds that simplify the process.
What is Oblique Intent?
Where an offence has been committed in the course of undertaking some other action, it can be difficult to state for certain that the defendant intended to commit the offence. If they insist that they were only interested in the end result and had no regard for the necessary actions in achieving it then where there is a specific intent offence, their lack of standard mens rea could lead to a miscarriage of justice.
Oblique intent offers a workaround to this situation. The term is also known as indirect intent and refers to a situation where a defendant achieving his or her end goal requires the commission of another offence along the way. The standard example used to illustrate oblique intent is shooting a victim through a closed window: in order to achieve their main goal of harming the victim, the assailant must by necessity break the window.
It is not possible to infer oblique intent in all situations, however. In R v. Woolin [1994], the court ruled that a jury could only infer intent if the prohibited consequences (such as breaking the window in the example above) were not only a virtual certainty but the defendant also understood this at the time.
Returning to the broken window example, the Woolin decision means that if the defendant honestly believed the window was open when they fired at the victim, they could not have the oblique intention of breaking it.
Determining Ulterior Intent
In a similar vein, a defendant can be found to have ulterior intent if they commit an offence as a means of achieving the ability to then go on and commit another offence. Although it is often referred to as an “ulterior motive”, the motive of a defendant does not usually matter when determining intention.
The crime of burglary under section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 requires an ulterior motive to be proved, for example. To be liable for burglary, a person must:
- enter a building as a trespasser; and
- intend to commit theft or criminal damage, or inflict grievous bodily harm
Where ulterior motives are present, there are effectively two mens rea to prove; one for the first crime, and an additional intent to commit the second crime. However, it is not necessary for the defendant to have actually carried out the second offence, as there is only one actus reus in each crime.
Determining the intentions of a defendant can be difficult even with crimes of basic intent. The law has therefore developed workarounds to make the process easier and to avoid potential miscarriages of justice. In each case, the workarounds apply only in specific circumstances and may be rebutted with sufficient evidence, as per the standard rules of criminal trials.
References:
- Allen M.J. & Cooper S., Elliott & Wood's Cases and Materials on Criminal Law (Ninth edition), Thomson, Sweet & Maxwell, London
- Martin E.A. (Ed.), A Dictionary of Law (Fifth Edition), Oxford University Press, Oxford
Zoe Kirk-Robinson - Zoë Kirk-Robinson is a freelance writer/artist specialising in legal writing, internet technology and creative writing. She holds a ...
Join the Conversation